pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Undergunned/Policy Whoring
I started it off, so yeah, smash and bash --[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 13:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :You just don't get the spirit of the wiki, do you? —''The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by'' Rawr. 13:31, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::Wiki stores useful information as far as I know--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 13:31, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::"Keeps admins in check". OH NO'S! DEM CRAZY ADMINS AT THEIR RASCAL VANDAL ACTIVITIES AGAIN! Seriously, there are no pros to Policy Whoring. --image:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*[[user talk:Guild of Deals|'Wah']] Wah!* 13:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::I strongly disagree, if nothing else there is a strong elitist feeling about it whenever the only thing admins are really checked by are other admins, if there is a majority.--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Seriously pvx needs to be elitist. Over on GWW you could completely suck at guild wars, but you can still edit an article and be right about it. Over here there are builds to be made, and builds to be deleted. If our admins were bad then pvx would be full of bad builds, and bad people and pvx would pretty much suck. No 13:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::::I'm feeling so much ^ right now. —''The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by'' Rawr. 13:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT) The con goes against the entire purpose of the wiki. Unless I'm reading something wrong. — Skakid 13:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :I can't even understand it... [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 20px 13:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::The con dosen't go against the wiki, read PvXwiki:About. If that needs to be updated make sure you switch out the part about everyone being encouraged to write builds, they aren't. Only 1337 ppl get to do that. Your only right about it at GWW if...your right about it, and admins might just be some of the worst vandals if you take all the builds they have ever deleted in violation of WELL. Not that that is a big deal, since they are protected by screw the rules.--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 15:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::They deleted those builds cuz they suck. Stop complaining. —''The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by'' Rawr. 15:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Not only 1337 people make builds, bad people do too. Is just that the 1337 people only get there builds vetted because there builds don't suck. No 15:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Thats what the voting system is for Rawr. Killing builds is hardly encouragment. Constructive Criticism=encouragement, KILLBuILD and gtfo is not..--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 15:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::::Usually we don't make admins here people who are bad at GW, so if they WELL something, they usually have a good reason. If a admin actually does overstep there power, that's what DF and Auron are there for, but otherwise if an admin feels that the wiki can be helped more by stepping over policy a little, then go for it. PvXwiki:Ignore All Rules pretty much. No 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT) The "pro" is actually a "con." Restricting admins isn't a good thing, especially when quality control is hard to maintain without any bureaucracy. If you have any specific arguments against a specific sysop, you can always leave a note on a bcrat talk page (or send an email). If this is just a general rant about how sysops are elitist, you might want to do a bit of research before spouting off. -Auron 15:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT) Builds that a determined minority group want may sometimes get through Oops you're bad. --71.229 15:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :lol nc, and no, your bad :P--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 16:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::Pretty sure your entire argument just got shot down, Undergunned. -Auron 16:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::I wasn't really referring to BuildMasters, and no not really. I was really referring to something kind of like what happened with the YellowWay build. That kind of thing is still viable even with Buildmasters.--[[User:Undergunned|'Under']] [[User_talk:Undergunned|'Gunned']] 16:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Because Guild Wars isn't based on opinion, it's based on facts. It's a FACT that Cripshots work, it's a FACT that Dagger Rangers blow like Korean prostitutes, it's a FACT that Mending is infact one of the worse skills avaliable. Buildmasters are here to seperate the fact from the opinion. --image:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*[[user talk:Guild of Deals|'Wah']] Wah!* 16:20, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::::I'd like to agree, but the FACT that builds get trashed, and later on vetted great because a high ranked guild used them, make me think otherwise. -[[User:StarSeeker |'Star'Seeker]] | ''My talk'' 16:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::::That argument sort of works both ways. Some builds are good and get trashed, some builds are trash and get vetted, even though top-ranked guilds run them for testing (like mpz running quick shot, even though it's a terrible elite). Nothing is perfect. However, an overload of policy is both equally imperfect and does nothing to actually solve your perceived problem. -Auron 17:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT) ::::::Alot of what people don't notice is the fact that the builds are posted before a buff, a buff/nerf comes out, then the build gets used as it is now viable due to other builds being nerfed or skills in the build getting buffed. Then they QQ that we're stupid, and point out they made the exact same build a long time ago, and many people facepalm. —''The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by'' Rawr. 18:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT) :::::::@Auron: yeah, I know, and that's the itchy thing about it. You can't really solve it, right? :::::::@Rawr: I know what you mean, but sometimes builds just get vetted great without a buff/nerf. AoB wasn't buffed, right? And I'm with you actually, not with the QQers. -[[User:StarSeeker |'Star'Seeker]] | ''My talk'' 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT) You should be here/contribute/get the wiki before actually making assumptions like this... ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹ 11:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT) ::::::::Builds also get booted for not fitting in with the meta. If the entire world swaps from using Balanced to Dervsmite, don't QQ about your signet Mesmer getting trashed before the shift and it being Great when someone else posted it after the shift. - [[User:Panic|'PANIC!']] sexiness! 11:25, 20 June 2008 (EDT) :::::::::Nah, that's not really it. The signet mesmers were already around, and they were like, say in the good/other category. When the meta shifted, they went up to great. I can understand that, but the AoB dervish was entirely different, right? Never been in good. -[[User:StarSeeker |'Star'Seeker]] | ''My talk'' 12:10, 20 June 2008 (EDT)